Is America really a secular nation ?

[Shaitan]

Go to any U.S. suburb that is at least moderately rich.

Do you mean "acting white"...

I have been to Suburbs that a beyond moderately white, trust me....

 

[civfanatic]

Do you mean "acting white"...

I have been to Suburbs that a beyond moderately white, trust me....

Yes, I mean "acting white".

In suburban America you have two options as far as as social life is concerned:
1) Act "white" and hang out with other white people (and others who also act "white").
2) Stick to your own community with only occasional interaction with "white" people, mostly through formal/professional settings.

What does it mean when black people, Hispanics, and other minorities are said to "act ghetto"?

 

[Godless-Kafir]

Where in the US? I don't think so...

Then why does Bobby Jindal and Nickey hailey both convert to christianity just to get elected and dress like white people, why cant she turn up in a Salvar khamese and get elected?

 

[ejazr]

You have differentiate between the French lacaite which is anti-religion secularism and the Indian/US/UK type secularism that gives equal freedom to all religions and being pluralistic in that sense.

People keep confusing the French style secularism as being the goal that should be reached. Here the govt. intervenes actively to remove religion from any public life. What should be the goal is the US style where religion is not banned from public life, but the govt. does not interfere in how you practice your religion giving you full freedom to practice it.

The other aspect is tolerance of other people and faiths. Many people make the argument that US is more tolerant than India when it comes to religious tolerance because there are less riots and deaths due to religion in the US. IMO, that is the wrong argument to make. In the US, there are strict laws and proper procedures that actually charge and convict people for violent crimes no matter what the reason is. Hence, people are less likely to commit violent crimes in the first place and if someone does so, the police is less likely to go with a communal bias and complete the investigation in a professional manner.
In India, poor local policiing and a clunky and slow judicial system keeps this deterence weak. Although strong willed politicians have shown how they can quikcly tackle a potential situation and prevent it from escalating.

When you actually look at people's attitude, there is lot more tolerance in India as well as respect for different faiths and people. Part of the reason is that India is such a diverse country and the migrations of various people over centuries has imbibed this tolerant attitude. On the other hand, in the US, there are some minor sections of the public who have very intolerant and xenophobic views of other people.

There are many examples to contrast the "attitudes" but one example that I give is how recently a muslim reality TV show in the US got into a huge controversy by the fringe fanatics because the show was showing only ordinary Muslims. The show itself - all american muslim - was horrible but the reason for opposing the show by these fringe fanatics was how could you show Muslims as normal people when they are actually terrorists, trying to put sharia law over the US through some baby stealth jihad technique. (All actual words used)

Compared to this, Indian cinema is ofcourse dominated by Muslim actors and actresses who potray mainly Hindu characters. But in many Indian movies, even Muslim women who wear Niqab and Burkha have been shown as the main heroine and love interest in the movies. And no one, not even the fringe fanatics from VHP/Bajrang Dal e.t.c. would even think of raising an objection to Muslims being depicted as such.

As civfanatic said, there is a small percentage who would actually like US to become a theorcracy, but the US Presidential system in a way amplifies their noise. On the other hand, a parliamentary democracy tends to marginalise small minorities and fringe fanatics.

 

[pmaitra]

Then why does Bobby Jindal and Nickey hailey both convert to christianity just to get elected and dress like white people, why cant she turn up in a Salvar khamese and get elected?

Same reason why Sonia Gandhi wears a sari. In Rome ....

 

[Godless-Kafir]

Same reason why Sonia Gandhi wears a sari. In Rome ....

Ya but A.K.Antony did not have to change his religion to Hinduism to get elected.

 

[Shaitan]

What does it mean when black people, Hispanics, and other minorities are said to "act ghetto"?

It's usually black people themselves that say you "act white" to other blacks that are well off.

Then why does Bobby Jindal and Nickey hailey both convert to christianity just to get elected and dress like white people, why cant she turn up in a Salvar khamese and get elected?

Dress like white people, what does that mean??

What do you want him to wear? Nehru jacket?

Why the hell would she wear a Salvar khamese? She's American with Indian origin. She dresses like an American..

 

[mattster]

Yes, I mean "acting white".

In suburban America you have two options as far as as social life is concerned:
1) Act "white" and hang out with other white people (and others who also act "white").
2) Stick to your own community with only occasional interaction with "white" people, mostly through formal/professional settings.

What does it mean when black people, Hispanics, and other minorities are said to "act ghetto"?

You must have a really low sense of self-esteem to come to that conclusion. Just because you dont have a social life doesnt mean that every Indian in the US is in the same pathetic boat that you find yourself in.

Get a -----ing life....dude

 

[civfanatic]

You must have a really low sense of self-esteem to come to that conclusion. Just because you dont have a social life doesnt mean that every Indian in the US is in the same pathetic boat that you find yourself in.

Get a -----ing life....dude

Indians in U.S. socialize with other Indians, blacks socialize with other blacks, Chinese socialize with other Chinese, whites with other whites. That's how it works for the most part. It is the nature of people to identify and gather in groups with other people who resemble themselves. The notion of America as a "melting pot" is a false one, a more accurate term would be a "salad bowl", as there are numerous sub-cultures with stark differences between them.

Besides, not all Indians go to U.S. with the intention of "assimilating" into "American" society

 

[pmaitra]

Besides, not all Indians go to U.S. with the intention of "assimilating" into "American" society

Is that a jibe against JayATL?

 

[civfanatic]

Is that a jibe against JayATL?

It is open to interpretation.

 

[balai_c]

You have differentiate between the French lacaite which is anti-religion secularism and the Indian/US/UK type secularism that gives equal freedom to all religions and being pluralistic in that sense.

People keep confusing the French style secularism as being the goal that should be reached. Here the govt. intervenes actively to remove religion from any public life. What should be the goal is the US style where religion is not banned from public life, but the govt. does not interfere in how you practice your religion giving you full freedom to practice it.

The other aspect is tolerance of other people and faiths. Many people make the argument that US is more tolerant than India when it comes to religious tolerance because there are less riots and deaths due to religion in the US. IMO, that is the wrong argument to make. In the US, there are strict laws and proper procedures that actually charge and convict people for violent crimes no matter what the reason is. Hence, people are less likely to commit violent crimes in the first place and if someone does so, the police is less likely to go with a communal bias and complete the investigation in a professional manner.
In India, poor local policiing and a clunky and slow judicial system keeps this deterence weak. Although strong willed politicians have shown how they can quikcly tackle a potential situation and prevent it from escalating.

When you actually look at people's attitude, there is lot more tolerance in India as well as respect for different faiths and people. Part of the reason is that India is such a diverse country and the migrations of various people over centuries has imbibed this tolerant attitude. On the other hand, in the US, there are some minor sections of the public who have very intolerant and xenophobic views of other people.

There are many examples to contrast the "attitudes" but one example that I give is how recently a muslim reality TV show in the US got into a huge controversy by the fringe fanatics because the show was showing only ordinary Muslims. The show itself - all american muslim - was horrible but the reason for opposing the show by these fringe fanatics was how could you show Muslims as normal people when they are actually terrorists, trying to put sharia law over the US through some baby stealth jihad technique. (All actual words used)

Compared to this, Indian cinema is ofcourse dominated by Muslim actors and actresses who potray mainly Hindu characters. But in many Indian movies, even Muslim women who wear Niqab and Burkha have been shown as the main heroine and love interest in the movies. And no one, not even the fringe fanatics from VHP/Bajrang Dal e.t.c. would even think of raising an objection to Muslims being depicted as such.

As civfanatic said, there is a small percentage who would actually like US to become a theorcracy, but the US Presidential system in a way amplifies their noise. On the other hand, a parliamentary democracy tends to marginalise small minorities and fringe fanatics.

Buddy, as far as I know, there is no such thing as anti religious secularism. Secularism , by its very nature IS anti religion. The only thing that offsets it is religious pluralism.So, yes, France upholds real secularism.